Movies-TV

Read The Book Instead

As much as I would like to say this was a great horror movie, it, unfortunately, falls far short of the potential of the genuine feeling of fear created by the book it was based on. I have no objection to the actors, they all did a good job with the script they were given, and the adaption was even acceptable. My major problem with this movie wasin the use of GERMAN SHEPARDS, for god's sake, to represent the canine equivalent of man on the evolutionary scale. The whole point of the story was that a branch of canines had evolved as far as man had evolved from apes, and had kept themselves hidden from mankind for all these years, feeding on the weak and the sick among us, never allowing themselves to be discovered except in the legends of werewolves and devils of the night. Tn the book, it was presented as though it were both possible and likely. In the moviy, the wolfen were no more frightning than a pack of feral dogs hanging around a city dump.

Stupid film

Somebody wrote that this film is about a superior race of wolves. I can't see it. This is stupidest film I've seen for a long time. The only reason I'm watching it is because Albert Finney and Edward James Olmos are in it. It just shows how low even great talents will go.Wolfen stealing infected body parts? This is superior? Nonsense. The only reliably good scenes are between Diane Venora and the ridiculously clothed Finney in bed. From the start she is obviously wanting a good poke. And, you notice, from his role as Tom Jones, Finney loves to slurp his kisses.Gregory Hines is just embarrassing. And why, oh why, would the Wolfen kill the wolf lover, whoevere his name is. Just silly.All those idiots who love this film I will leave you with one thought. The best line in the film is Finney's when, asked for his ID, says, "All that separates you from a guard dog, is a brain." Amen.Yours sincerely, John Gander

"THEY DON'T MAKE MOVIES LIKE WOLFEN ANYMORE"

Whitley Striebers book "Wolfen" explains alot more than this movie ever could. I still feel this movie was done very well. I was dissapointed that this dvd only has a trailer and no other special features. Wolfen was filmed beautifully in New York, Bklyn, Bronx, Staten Island. Wolfen really caught New York during 1980-1981,the big apple was some what different then. This film eerily catches the Bronx in a cold septic view. Wolfen made you very aware of the sociol class, poverty and drug problems of America during the early 1980s. The soundtrack by James Horner is simply awesome. In my opinion Wolfen was the best of the wolf movies of the early 1980s. They dont make movies like this anymore. This was Michael Wadleighs last film but really a well directed film with some interesting actors and charachters. Wolfen does have some political views as well as regarding mans technology against natures, and the treatment of the American Indian and thier connection to the wolf. Albert Finney plays an excellent NYPD detective. The late Gregory Hines an excellent pathologist. Veteran actor Dick O'neil plays a believable NYPD Captain. Diana Venora whatever became of Diane, but her charachter was really interesting to. This film also supplies some great landscape shots as well. People will have different views of Wolfen,but in all very entertaining. Take out of "Wolfen" what you will. "Wolfen knows all, there could be no lying". Michael Wadliegh and his crew do an awesome job with a steadicam and a louma crane capturing the predators prospective. A very well crafted film with some ambiguity.......

'Wolfen' not quite sure what it wants to be......

At the risk of adding yet another "this movie was not like the book" review, I will point to "Jaws" as a movie that deviated somewhat from the book, but still maintained the horror and impending sense of doom that the novel skillfully imparted. "Wolfen", on the other hand, comes across as a heavy-handed and absurd treatise on the evils of overdeveloping land. Michael Wadleigh, director of "Woodstock", seems to want to let the world know that he's a tree-hugger and proud of it. While Whitley Streiber's excellent novel portrayed the wolfen as a super-intelligent race of hunters that systematically track down and destroy that which threatens their existence (mainly, Wilson and Neff, investigating the murders of two fellow cops committed by the wolfen), Wadleigh's adaptation blurs the line between survival and political activism. Indeed, halfway through the film you expect the wolfen to show up with "save the rainforests" buttons pinned on their pelts. Streiber's novel made the wolfen's mindset clear: Destroy that which threatens us. In that respect, the murders at the beginning of the book (the two police officers) are a mistake, a rash action by two young cubs which leads to more and more humans closing in on the wolfen. The wolfen have managed to remain hidden for years due to their cunning; attack the old and infirm, those that will not be missed, and destroy the bodies, something which the two cubs ignored and is now threatening the existence of the pack. The movie wolfen, on the other hand, basically attack a celluloid Donald Trump because he is razing over their slums and building an apartment complex. The movie then turns into a neo-political whodunnit, with Native-American Edward James Olmos being considered for the crime, and then local trust-fund terrorists Götterdämmerung being pegged for the deaths. Suffice it to say, the wolfen of the novel would not have risked their existence being revealed by killing a developer; they would have merely moved on and searched for new hunting grounds.

I give the movie two stars mainly because of the acting of the principles involved. Albert Finney makes an impressive George "Dewey" Wilson, and looking back at it now it's hard to imagine anyone else in that role. Gregory Hines' Whittington is a vast improvement over (the book's) curmudgeonly Wilson-hating Evans, and his interaction with Finney is a highlight. Tom Noonan's Ferguson is note for note the Ferguson from the novel, and freshfaced Diane Venora is adequate as Neff (here relegated to a secondary role as opposed to co-headliner in the novel). The scenes with the wolfen are merely OK, with Neff and Wilson investigating the old church and Wilson and Whittington staking out the wolfen as chilling as it's going to get.

I won't go over the absurd ending of the film, but I will say this: See it for the curiosity factor, then read the novel. You'll see where Michael Wadleigh (who also helped write the screenplay) injected his own politics into the film, and destroyed a fine concept in the process.

It's a damn shame Wadleigh didn't direct other fiction films!

I won't spend time arguing about the merits of whether "Wolfen" is going to be an "effective" or "gee-whiz" entertainment for you and the kids next Saturday night. What I will argue is how the craftsmanship that went into this film far exceeds the multitudes of celluloid treats that have been shot in the last decade.Director Michael Wadleigh truly understood how to embrace the two sensory communicators that movies deliver to an audience, that of sight and sound, and wove a tapestry of motifs that help elevate a mere "super-wolves-preying-on-humans-in-NY" tale into something that "feels" like it's so much more.So many contemporary directors of popular features, notably those who churn out horror flicks, frame scenes and trim shots down to movements and moments that simply, and I mean, VERY simply, propel the plot points. Period. Sure, there's quirky camera angles out windows, across streets, and up drain pipes, as well as amped up door slams and sudden weird little-girl yowls, to give it a "cool," slick MTV style feature film look. But it's all to service the plot point at that very moment in the narrative. If it's a piece of business that will be used again in the film, it will be hamhandedly shoved in our faces at first so we definitely WON'T forget it a half hour later. Very little thought is put into motifs -- things that aren't overt, but instead are picked up by the subconscious.So, what were some of the things Wadleigh did? Take a look at the opening 10 minutes of this film. Sure, Christopher and Pauline Van De Veer get snuffed in Battery Park by mysterious wolfen. Dewey Wilson copters in from Staten Island, back on a case after a long absence. And at the morgue, no residual traces of a weapon are found on the bodies. All routine, yet key plot points. Now look and hear what Wadleigh spent time doing with his film-making craft to give the movie subtextual resonance.Pauline Van De Veer cradles her pearl necklace in her mouth while riding in her limo. Dewey arrives at Battery Park munching on donuts. He stands at the morgue, eating a cookie, whole. A few moments later, Dewey is at his desk, smoking a big cigar. Why did Wadleigh choose to have these very specific scenes of business in the movie? To layer his film with motifs of "the mouth." The wolfen survive and attack with their mouths, and the humans subtly and continuously remind us of this, whether it's the sloppy sounds of Finney and Venora's passionate kissing or Hine's potato chip crescendo-crunches while surveilling the wolfen.This film is packed with linking symbolism and subtext like this that aren't overt, but give it that extra weight, which makes it more than just an average horror flick. The wind chimes in Battery Park jingle exactly like the mirrored vertical shades in the Van De Veer penthouse, and with both of Dewey's visits to that domicile, we're cued audibly by those shimmering curtains, perhaps subconsciously, back to those precursor windchimes in Battery Park as a harbinger of the first attack. The visual cues of a Native American on horseback on the Battery Park windmill, a shadowy figure of ancient evil cast across the windmill's sails, the Haitian voodoo ring on the bodyguard's finger, a shaman necklace a derelict trades for some hallucinoginic pills, and the decrepit centerpiece, that of a crumbling, abandoned Christian church, are all somewhat subtle subtext images that enforce underlying belief systems and mystical notions that coincide with the fanciful existence of the centuries-old wolfen in our midst.What about the wolfen's keen visual senses? Wadleigh shrewdly counterpoints that "dated effect" of the wolfen (as some of you dismissively characterize it) by focusing a spotlight on our limited human visual senses throughout this picture. And again, it's not huge plot points. It's simply subtextual to lend the film more weight. Whether it's Dewey not quite able to see the wolfen at the top of the church stairs, to his not quite seeing them beyond his car hood in the rain, to the derelict's altered point of view stumbling around the Bronx under the influence of drugs, to the need of humans to enhance their visual capabilities with computers (as in the case of the heat color-coded detection device used by Van De Veer's security chief), to finally, the absolute breakdown in human visual acuity...the mystical "vanishing" of the wolfen from everyone's sight in the penthouse at the film's finale.There are literally a dozen more motifs running in this film. I only have a 1,000 words I can print. But this movie is truly a prime example of what lacks in film-making today. Craft, pure and simple. Care and thought put into each scene, each shot. Other layers of meaning beneath the simple plot line. Give "Wolfen" another look. I guarantee you will see and hear things that weren't apparent to you before. Will it be a better horror flick to you? Probably not. But you will appreciate a time when directors knew what to do with a camera, what to do with images, and how to make audio cues signal subtle, and subconscious, recognition bursts that, when woven together, all gave a film more gravity and impact. Oh, how I wish Wadleigh had directed more movies.

Good direction, but the film as a whole...mediocre.

ALBERT FINNEY stars as a detective investigating a series of grisly deaths which he soon finds out is caused by an ancient old evil (werewolves) that are making their rounds at night & picking off various people. WOLFEN is a film that all though praised by some as a great horror film, is also seen as pretty mediocre fare by others & I'm one of them, although director MICHAEL WADLEIGH manages to wring in a few suspenseful & at times, atmospheric moments & does some of the best directing ever done for a horror film with his nifty POV'S from the werewolves & plenty of good steadicam shots (That steadicam really was put to good use here!) he overall fails to engage the audience much into his story, the werewolves in this film are not to impressive & the film is overlong & at times to chatty, though he did well in casting the roles including GREGORY HINES as a morgue attendant & Albert Finney as the detective among others, overall WOLFEN fails to provide much excitement in it's running time, despite it's interesting concept. All in all, it's not a total waste of time, but it doesn't quiet click either & lacks that certain sense of dread found in most werewolf movies, if it comes on TV it may be worth a glance, but really since there are so many better werewolf movies out there, it's best you leave this one alone.**1/2 stars

3.5 stars, but good movie...

Good movie. Great camerawork. Werewolf legends accurate (rare for werewolf movies, I'm sure). The only part I couldn't stand was that it became a substandard Indian-burialground let's-not-build-apartment-complexes-on-sacred-land movie at the end.

Not enough gore, either, but there is lots of atmosphere in the movie, and that kind of evens it out. If only all horror movies were this way...

Thriller with no thrills

I would first like to state that this is probably the least populous I have ever seen New York City in a movie, ever and found it completely unbelievable. If New York was populated as it should be I highly doubt that a pack of Wolves err excuse me Wolfen would be able to live in New York. I found this movie to be boring and have limited thrills and a lot of unnecesary scenes. The entire character of the female psychologist was irrelevant to the plot and seemed to be there just so that Finney would have someone to mumble lines to (oh and have sex with, in another totally worthless scene that went no where, but is probably the only sex scene in film to be shown in "wolfen vision"). When the "mystery" if you want to call it that finally gets revealed all we are left with is a very anti-climactic ending and a heavy handed message about learning to share the world with animals. Just because the movie has a "good" message doesn't make the movie good. As a horror movie it's slow with little tension, lots of pointless scenes and dialogue, a totally unlikeable protagonist. I guess after writing this review I'm surprised I gave this movie a "4", I'm thinking I might need to change it to a "3". Go check out American Werewolf in London, or the Howling or even the original Wolfman before watching this.
BTW did anyone think the scene with a naked Edward James Olmos acting like a wolf(en) down by the docks was necessary?Zoopansick

What the hell is this movie about?

So ummm...is this about werewolves? Native American shape shifters? Or a pack of ordinary wolves on the loose in NYC?

Damned if I know and damned if the director, screenwriter, cast and crew know either. Wolfen is one of them there horror movies where the true face of terror are Things That Aren't Really Explained Or Make Much Sense.

This can be an effective device in movies, go watch any David Lynch movie to immerse yourself in a sense of mystery and enigma. In Wolfen however, the effect is mostly that of people wandering around doing stuff and saying things and then there is some action at the end and then the movie is over. Maybe they were going for some kind of Kaffkaesque feeling of dread, but this came out a year after Chaddyshack, so frankly I doubt it.

Albert Finney joins the distinguished ranks of obviously foreign actors playing a big city American cop-he does Ah-nuld proud! Gregory Hines plays a guy who jokes a lot, I'm not sure but he might have been a cop too. Edward James Olmos plays a Native American construction worker who smiles a lot and knows more than he is saying, He would play a better version of this character a year later, in Blade Runner.

I'm sure there are some people reading this who are enraged and consider me obtuse and unsophisticated for not picking up on the nuances of the directon and the script. At least, I certainly hope such people exist because maybe one or more of them could track me down and explain to me what the crap is going on here.

I eagerly await your responses!

PS- In case you are wondering, no I haven't read the novel the movie is based on. I suppose I could but Whitley Strieber has said in inerviews that his horror novels are metaphors for his alien abduction experiences, so I most likely won't get help there...

Urban Legends

Spoilers. There isn't anything particularly new about this production.
Even the ecological aspect has been used before. And the director uses suspense-heightening techniques that were honed to perfection back in the early 50s by people like Jack Arnold. There is either creepy music or utter silence and the character is alone and senses danger. Suddenly a hand reaches into the frame and taps the character's shoulder. The character jumps but it's a friend's hand. I didn't count the number of times this hoary device is used in one or another of its incarnations. A character sitting alone in the darkness suddenly has a wolf's hide flung over him (by a friend). A woman investigating a suspicious noise in her own apartment is shocked when she spins around and sees a shadow figure -- but it's only her reflection in a mirror. The director has also used an irritating photographic technique to signal the presence of wolves. We have learned from Fergie (the expert lupologist) that wolves have an enormous range in their visible spectrum of light, from ultra violet through infra red. For much of the movie we are looking at events from the wolves' point of view.
To render this enhanced visibility the director has chosen to overhue the images or to make them suddenly flash. It's truly a distraction, especially coupled with the use of a shakey hand-held camera whose movements are accelerated. Something similar happens with the wolves' hearing. They can detect sounds from "earth tremors" to about 100,000 cycles per second.
(Ours runs from about 20 cps to 20,000 cps, tops.) The enhanced hearing is suggested by making the sound of a man crunching Fritos audible from across the street, but also by overlapping the same sounds slightly out of synch.
If that were actually the way wolves heard noises, they wouldn't be around any more. The story doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense either, when you come right down to it. Let us skip over the fakery of the mysticism attributed to Indians who work the high steel in New York City -- mostly Mohawks in real life. As a cultural anthropologist I've lived with and studied Chippewa, Tlingit, Cheyenne and Blackfeet. They are religious in a way that goes beyond our concept of visiting church on Sundays. They may use peyote too, but they are serious about it. Among the Cheyenne the ceremony is preceded by a very long fast, lasts for 24 hours, and takes place in a social context, accompanied by drums and songs. Here, Eddie gobbles some kind of psychedelic substance after coming out of a bar, tears off his clothes, and runs growling and croaking alone through the night. Don't American Indians have enough to contend with? Must we do this to their image too?The wolves' roles should have been more carefully thought out too. They feed off the sick, the abandoned, in their own quiet Darwinian way. But then why did they attack Van der Whatever and his wife and eat their brains?
The guy was an alpha male, so eating him doesn't exactly prune the herd of misfits. And sometimes the wolves can recognize a friend when they see and smell him -- they let Finney and Venora go after cornering them in an office. And sometimes they don't. Fergie, the expert, weeps with pity and love for wolves, but it doesn't matter. They eat him too. So is there any reason to watch this film? I think so. The reason such tried and true formulae like these survive is because they work. (This is known as cinematic Darwinism.) This one would do better without the dazzling and bewildering photographic business, but it works pretty well as a scifi/monster movie centered about locations in the South Bronx, which here looks a lot like Frankfurt, Germany, did in 1945. The acting is quite good as well. Gregory Hines is more than a simple sidekick, although how he gets from pathology to being a street sniper is brushed over without explanation. Albert Finney does well by his American accent. His drollery -- the script is occasionally pretty witty -- is casual and offhand. And Diane Venora -- wow! She's a beautiful woman to begin with. And she's given a flattering do and just the right amount of Hollywood makeup. Not much is asked of her in the role of Finney's new partner, drawn into the case because of her knowledge of cults and symbols. She is, more or less, to Finney what Joan Weldon was to James Arness in "Them." There is a love scene between them, but we see it through the eyes of the wolves who have followed them home to an apartment and evidently climbed the walls in order to peek through the windows on an upper story. Blast! Both the images and sounds are distorted beyond anything other than minimal recognition. Well, I suppose it's a novel way to show lovemaking, although no "Hiroshima mon Amour." Largely because of the performances and the occasional bright spot in the script, and because of the relatively new locations, I rather enjoy it. It's worth spending time on. And I agree with Fergie. We should stop killing wolves. There are too many of us and too few of them.

Survival of the fittest....

After having reviewed several comments, yes, the film is a bit dated, we can do without the cocaine and decadent 80's references, but overall this is an interesting film with several notable performances.The idea of a wolfen entity, fighting to survive, is not too hard to believe. It is a question of survival, not good or evil.When Tom Noonan, who works at the zoo, is viewing the murder of wolves, we see man's inhumanity to animals; the fact that the wolfed act as they do makes perfect sense.The POV of the wolf, especially as seen in the South Bronx, is cold and calculating. But they only do this to survive. While this is not a werewolf movie, or even conventional horror, it is an interesting theme which is worth viewing, and the creature Albert Finney sees on the steps of the abandoned building is rather frightening. This is a film where if you are intrigued, you may also want to read the novel. 8/10.

Dated

The third of the werewolf movies from the early '80s. DVD review.In derelict New York strange murders take place. Finney investigates and discovers a pack of supernatural wolves.Confusing movie that probably seemed impressive 25 years ago. It's incredibly dated - most of the characters are middle-aged men, the reversal footage used for the wolves' viewpoint appears silly, the stylish contrast between scenes (as soon as something interesting happens the scene abruptly ends), scruffy Finney (who looks like an extra), the silly detective plot (which occurred in a lot of intelligent horror movies from that era), and the fashion sense. All that's mossing is a scene set in a nightclub (complete with disco music from the era). You'll spend most of the picture wondering what exactly is going on. The best part of the movie was the unusual casting.Wolfen is a dated but serious werewolf movie.

It's not wolves, it's Wolfen ...

Highly stylised account of territorial beings protecting their heritage from would be developers. Director Wadleigh offers a surreal, suspenseful tale where mysticism and folklore conjure a modern day nightmare for the residents of a New York city development precinct.Finney is ideally cast as an unassuming police detective assigned to investigate the apparent ritual slayings of a billionaire developer, his wife and bodyguard in a New York park. Pulsating synthesisers and point-of-view audio-visual cinematography add a sophisticated dimension to this one of a kind movie, that benefits from an unusual cast who excel in their offbeat characterisations.Perfectly cast is future "Manhunter" (Red Dragon) Tom Noonan as the over-protective zoologist, dancer Gregory Hines as the hip coroner, and Edward James Olmos as the misplaced American Indian whose mystical incantations reveal the true identity of the killer. Reginald Vel Johnson (of "Die Hard" fame) also features in an hilarious bit part as a morgue attendant.The manufacturers of prosthetic, severed hands make a killing in this movie which revels in its measured use of black comedic undertones. But don't be fooled; this is still a thoughtful, sometimes graphic motion picture that entertains on many levels. The often poetic dialogue and haunting score should keep you curious about this movie enough to want to see it again and again. A real sleeper.

A Wolf with Bite

I've never been a big one for werewolves' films. They always seemed silly to me and for the most part- I think they have been. Wolfen is that rarity- that something that presents itself as one thing but winds up being entirely different.


The surprise.

Albert Finney plays Detective Dewy Wilson- called in on a high profile murder case that has all the earmarks of an execution. Finney's portray is weathered, worn and worth the watch from the word go. I love watching an actor who can convey a character's past in the seconds or minutes he or she is given to establish it. Very few can and Finney is one of them. His Dewey is a man on the edge- a man called in for cases like these, and a man whose nerves, sensibilities and reality are shot as a result of them.

He is placed in the company of a young security expert (high tech intelligence) Diane Venora and they form an interesting duo/love interest as they try to unravel the murder(s). The late, great Gregory Hines is also enlisted (by Finney) as pathologist and he turns in a terrific, hip and solid performance as the only other character Finney's Wilson seems to collaborate with. Edward James Olmos also deserves special mention (pre Miami Vice) as a dramatic tease that winds up with some telling truths. " You got your technology but you lost. You lost your senses ".

The visual effect for the wolves sensory/hunt sequences is terrific (aided greatly by James Horner's score), and they take their time in introducing `the werewolves'- like any really good film does. Ultimately, what it really winds up being/meaning is food (pardon the expression) for thought.

The film is based on the Whitley Striber novel (a really good read, too). David Eyre and Michael Wadleigh (who directs) did a terrific job with the screenplay- the characters are a proper mix of street and smarts and the mystically ancient.


The Bronx scenes are properly eerie, disturbing and a visual testimony to some of our own poverty in North America.

I won't ruin the story by revealing anymore but if you're looking for an overlooked gem in the horror/mystery field, this film will be of interest. It drew poor box office when it came out because it was lost in a `werewolves avalanche' of film releases (i.e.: The Howling, Silver Bullet, American Werewolf in London etc) but for my money, it was by far the most interesting, inventive and socially conscious.


Good work has several levels and if you're looking for the thinking person's horror story- here's a good one for you.

Creepy but clumsy

Heavy-handed 70s style environmental message and a fuzzy ending marred this one. But I can still see why this movie left an impression on me 20 years ago -- it had some very creepy moments and a number of excellent visual effects. Throw in some great gritty sets in a bombed out part of the Bronx, and you have a movie with some real atmosphere. But I think the parts here were somewhat greater than the whole. Despite some great moments, the overall movie just wasn't that good, and it definitely wandered down the stretch. A good concept not fully realized -- creepy, but clumsy.

One of my all time favorates!

One of the most fun and informative horror flicks I have seen to date. Before working for Amazon, I was studying to be a wolf bioligist, as well as having deeply studied the werewolf legends, and to me, this movie is a rare treat. Besides excelent suspense buildup, this movie educates you about it's subject matter. It makes you feel not only for the main human charactors, but the supernatural pack of wolves that hides below ground. A scarry visual treat.

Interesting for a few reasons

Pretty average fare all round.However it was interesting to see where nine tenths of the atmosphere of Predator came from.This film features almost identical video effects for the wolfen vision and when the camera switches we hear a similar metallic/slicing sound announcing the change of perspective. This unknown survieller was the reason Predator was so creepy.This combined with some good, dramatic music from James Horner made it interesting enough for me. Horner (like almost all movie-music composers) borrows heavily from his previous works and you will notice this if you are familiar with Aliens which he did the music for 5 years later.Forget the hippie melodrama and soft-boiled ending. The quasi-animistic and political distractions from the main plot were enough to severely weaken an otherwise interesting movie.

A Brilliant, Thought-provoking Horror Film

A thriller that really packs a bite, "Wolfen" is one cool flick. With Albert Finney, one of the screen's most gifted actors, heading a cast that includes Gregory Hines and late character actor Dick O'Neil, the movie holds interest from beginning to end. Especially effective is the use of Native American folklore. Although given the Hollywood treatment, it is still refreshing to see a film that, at least, melds myth and horror. The camerawork and an early James Horner score are added bonuses.

A Good Film That Could Have Been Great If It Had Not Got Sidetracked With Agendas

The Wolfen is produced, shot, and acted well, and it's based on an excellent, intense novel - so why is it only good but not great? Don't get me wrong, it is worth seeing, if you're a fan of mystery/creepy films, wolves, or Albert Finney, who does a great job as usual. The film starts out well with a creepy slaying of the ultra rich Van Der Veer couple and their bodyguard in a park in Manhattan. They are killed in seconds, and for no immediately apparent reason, as they were not robbed. Most of the killing is seen through a creepy killer's POV, as it were. So in comes grizzled, world-weary detective Wilson (Finney) to try to solve a crime where there's no clear murder weapon, method, or motive. He is later joined by Rebecca Neff, a psychologist who focuses in terrorism, to see if some environmental activists were responsible, since they really hated Mr. Van Der Veer. But they begin to realize there is some inhuman, unknown, ferocious group of creatures living right in the big city. Meanwhile the story pace is interrupted every once in a while to focus on a group of Native American buds, led by Edward James Olmos, who may have some involvement with what's going on.


If it seems like the Native American stuff with Olmos fits oddly with the pace and plot of the movie in the first half (like Olmos running completely naked on the beach at night and howling at the moon - I didn't need to see that), that's because none of it was in the book. The book's plot is much more straightforward than the film version, and usually with book-to-film translations, it's the opposite. But instead of streamlining the story like most movie versions would do, this one mainly alters the focus of the story and the director Michael Wadleigh throws in a lot of ecological messages and native American mumbo jumbo mythology (not their real mythology) which appear at odd moments and sidetrack the main story.


"The Howling" was another werewolf movie the same year that took a book idea and made a film version that uses the basic story as a vehicle for other issues. In The Howling film, modern psychology takes a beating, and so does the whole werewolf movie genre in general (although that part is more of a tribute). But The Howling film mostly works better than Wolfen, because it has a better pace and better effects. However, both films have endings that didn't work to me. And both films' endings are completely contrary to their respective novels. This comes from trying to tell the same story as a book but giving the characters different motivations and giving a different context to what's happening. This works for a while, but in almost all films that try to do this, no matter how accurate they may be early on, the movie story will eventually stray from the book until you reach an ending that's very different. Why? Well, in any story that's well-plotted, things happen for a certain reason, and characters do things because of certain motivations and causes and effects. If you change those motivations, reasons, and causes, but yet try to tell the same story, eventually it will diverge from the original story, because the characters wouldn't DO all the same things if the situation around them was different. This was my main complaint with the movie Bram Stoker's Dracula. Here, the way Albert Finney gets the Wolfen to stop their rampage at the very end is almost laughably contrary to the novel. If he'd tried the same stunt in the novel, they'd have ripped him to shreds.


But here the creatures are more like regular wolves and less like the "wolfen" as described in the book. In the movie, there's no mention of their opposable thumb-like claws, which allow them to open doors, windows, climb balconies, etc. Or the fact that they're much larger and somewhat different shaped than regular wolves, including more advanced faces. But then I guess that would have been hard to do at the time with the effects as they had. I also felt they showed the wolfen way too much at the end, taking away a lot of their mystique. Although another theory I've heard is that the wolf creatures were less scary in the film version on PURPOSE, so that the viewer would feel more sympathetic to them at the end. After all, there is that end shot of several of the Wolfen running happily in the snow. In the book, the author does spend a lot of time inside the minds of the Wolfen, explaining the whole story from their point of view as well, so there are some moments of sympathy, but most of the perspective given there serves to show what the Wolfen are like, what they're capable of, and just how intelligent and dangerous they are as adversaries.


The movie starts out scary, but ultimately ends up being preachy, trying to leave the viewer with a conviction that man is responsible for the behavior of (fictional) creatures like this. The book, on the other hand, is more about two humans realizing what it's like to be hunted like an animal. It is actually more the book's theme of this that seems to have inspired some of the ideas in "Predator." That movie clearly got its "infrared Predator-vision" shot ideas from similar shots in this film.


Abert Finney as Wilson I liked, and Diane Venora was all right as Becky Neff, although her character here is slightly different than who she was in the novel. The coroner, Gregory Hines, is a nice addition to the film. Edward James Olmos and his Native American buds are okay, but in the end they're mostly there to preach. The character in the film I disliked the most, especially when compared to the book, was Dr. Ferguson, who comes across here as kind of a naïve bum of a doctor. Way too sensitive, too; in one scene his eyes are tearing up while he watches video footage of wolves being chased down by helicopters in the snow. He served a real purpose in the novel, becoming one of the major characters, although even there he was too much of an idealist. But here he just is along for the ride, and not very long at that.


Overall, I'd say Wolfen is enjoyable, and at times scary, but it's not what it easily could have been with all the talent and potential. But it certainly is a unique film that has a place in "werewolf" film history.

Terrifying

I watched Wolfen the other night and was reminded of when i saw it in the theater. It ,at that point, had been the most terrifying film I had seen. This is not a werewolf movie nor a monster movie and barely a horror film. It is a good detective story with slight fantasy elements. I thought Albert Finney was good and Gregory Hines was great. I am not into werewolf films at all so this ended up working for me. But the scenes in the bad areas of NY were quite scary and in the church truly frightening. Just look for the eyes!!!!